Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by Godless Raven, Apr 11, 2013.
I'd put it this way: The needs of the many do not excuse curtailing the rights of the few.
Especially when its illegal as hell.
^I didn't realize you were an expert on Federation law.
Unless we assume Dougherty was lying, and we frankly don't have reason to, The Council approved his actions, at least in the broad sense. Presumably if that occurred then what transpired was legal on some level.
Yeah I'm fairly certain if the Federation Council signs off on it they can make it legal being they... make the law. Even Picard stopped arguing the legality of it after Dougherty threw the Council card at him and just stuck with the morality of it.
You guys were the ones arguing emanate domain, don't complaint to me when I show you how it actually works.
And then they changed their minds at the end after a quick call from Riker, doesn't seem to be a very concrete law, especially since Dougherty was pretty vague. And Picard did not give up on the legality of it thats why he had Riker go bitch at them.
Besides just becuase the government says so is a piss poor excuse that ignores the possibility that they can actually do something illegal.
Thats kind of why there is a process for removing them from office if they do something illegal.
And you've never heard of a politician backing down from something that looks bad when they get caught?
You can't say it's illegal... when the people who make the laws sign off on it. Sorry. Immoral sure, you can argue that. There is a difference.
You're not really helping your position here.
Funny that never stopped the Supreme Court from striking laws down which kind of makes them illegal.
I didn't hear anything about a Supreme Court ruling in the movie? I've never even heard anything about a Federation Supreme Court... you're kind of making things up..
They halted it for 'review' (per the movie) for all we know they relocated the Ba'ku afterward anyway.
In general I'm pointing out that in real life the U.S. Supreme Court can strike down laws passed by Congress to point out that the "if the law makers pass it its legal argument"
I though that was a fair thing to do what with real legal terms were used to justify your side of the argument. Funny how that isn't the case anymore when its pointed out that they actually don't.
The fact that Picard wasn't court-martialed and Geordi still uses ocular implants and that these game changing particles did not seem to be in use added to the fact that the Son'a seemed to be try to reconcile with the Ba'ku and the major proponents of the relocation were dead one of which was murdered by the other one who then died trying to kill everyone tends to support the argument that they didn't.
Why? Maybe the Son'a had a legitimate point, that doing hours of needless back breaking labor to serve some Luddite philosophy is just pointless and counter productive.
The Ba'ku used force to expell the Son'a from that world and now the Son'a are using force to do remove the Ba'ku. Turn about is fair play.
The baku were NOT on their original homeworld.
They settled a planet belonging to one of the species which will subsequently joined the federation.
That makes the baku tresspassers.
Which means the federation - or one of the species which will join the federation - claimed that solar system BEFORE the baku settled it.
After the baku settled that solar system, the federation would not have claimed it.
First - you went from ~'the federation is not like USA' to ~'the federation's law on eminent domain is just like today's liberal democracies'?
You DO tend to make things up. Of course, baseless assertions remain worthless.
Second - you went from ~'the federaion had no right to remove the baku from the planet' to ~'the federation had no right to remove the baku from their planet without due process'?
You're making progress.
To answer your question, under current eminent domain law, as legiferated in liberal democracies, yes, the baku were denied due process - a right they legally had.
And any such process would have only one outcome - unless the judge and jury are sociopathic: the baku will be moved to another similar planet, given the immortality drug (along with billions of other peoples) and the rings are mined for the immortality drug.
The losses/gains weighing on the two sides of the balance are far too disproportionate for another decision.
So, if the baku are given due process, you would agree with the decision of moving them?
Or is your 'due process' argument only a smokescreen, used for its 'respectability'?
Your argument sure seems to be all over the place. We don't know what sort of checks and balances, if any, the Federation has. For all we know they were ready to do the equivalent of amending the Constitution for this case. We don't know. You're the one bringing up the legality of it when we don't know Federation law beyond what's presented. All the characters seem to be of the opinion that if the Council says so, they make it legal, so that's good enough for me.
And when the f@#k was that ever stated in the movie NOBODY lives in the f@#king Briar Patch accept the Ba'ku
No I'm pointing out how full of crap the eminent dominant argument being bandied about by people who apparently didn't bother to look the term up is and how its probably being used to make their argument look legitimate.
Considering they were planning to move them without any proceeding I wouldn't be so sure of that, especially since considering you probably didn't even no about the due process thing in eminent dominant until I pointed it out I'm not that confident in your understanding of how legal procession work out.
Here is a hint not very quickly or as clear cut as you think it is.
Hell the fact that this was done in secret apparently already leads me to think the term Political S@#tstorm for the Mass Effect games would apply here as everyone and the grandma is going to be commenting on it with their opinions you know like Ru'afo DIDN'T WANT TO HAPPEN which is why he wanted to MURDER the Enterprise crew.
According to Dougherty NO they were most certainly not or are you going to reinterpret the phrase about returning them to their proper course of evolution like you do legal terms?
No I just felt you should no the actually definition of the word that gets thrown around like the people using it (incorrectly I might add) like they even know what it means when they again apparently DO NOT!
No I'm saying how full of crap the its eminent dominant argument is based on the fact that none of you even knows what it means, your just using it to make your argument sound better its no more correct that that stupid asking for a lawyer means you are guilty crap police procedures use.
Much like how you were arguing about the real legal systems until I pointed out how they don't actually support your argument like you think they do, then suddenly we don't know how the federation works even after I pointed out their onscreen expansion policy which goes against this issue.
So the federation just changes their laws in secret basically whenever its convenient? how very noble of them
Which disagrees with you so you use real law without any actual knowledge of how it works until it disagrees with you
I'm sensing a pattern here.
Until you bitch at them then its not legal apparently besides since when has the admiral character opposing the main heroes ever been right in the entire history of the franchise to that point.
It's called deduction - based on what was established in the movie (federation teritory) and the federation's territorial policies (how does space become federation territory).
I just explained it - twice over - in some detail. Do try to keep up.
The baku tresspassed on territory belonging to a future federation member species.
Guess what? That makes them tresspassers, regardless of whether the star system was inhabited or not.
And all you've managed to point out is how full of crap your argument is; how little you bothered to research the eminent domain laws.
And again you only manage to point out the weakness of your argument - now resorting to cheap/irrelevant tricks such as ~'the baku won't be moved out because random person x and y won't care how many billions will suffer'?
And about that due trial? Well, who cares what it will establish, yes? You certainly don't.
So - eminent domain laws don't support your argument; your argument was proven some posts ago as morally falimentary.
What's left for you?
Baseless repetition. A, yes - and ad persoams.
And again, you unintentionally draw attention to your own ignorance of eminent domain legislation.
Seriously. Look it up - you are embarassing yourself.
Unless you're just putting words in my mouth, point out where I argued any real legal systems? You're the one bringing up legality or just don't seem to know the difference between legality and morality.
As for changing laws when convenient? It happens all the time. Who said anything about it being noble? Again if you want to argue the morality of it, do that. Stop bringing up the legality of it.
Again.. where did I bring up any real law? Stop putting words in my mouth or bother to read who's posting what if you want to be taken seriously. The only pattern I'm sensing here is you're either not paying attention or just seeing what you want to see to fit your vague argument whatever it may be.
Apparently. That's how the script roles. It was poorly written and everything just ends happily... because they say so. Certainly not for any tangible reason beyond that.
the "no due process" argument is of course a smoke screen. The reason they didn't approach them initially is because it was thought the Baku were primitives, and pre-space contact.
Once it was clear they weren't, it was only because of poor writing that negotiations for compensation and removal didn't begin. ( and because they wanted to avoid a "baku say no" scenario.)
And those arguing against removal aren't really going to change positions if the Federation had approached the Baku and been blunt about evoking eminent domain.
Honestly thinking about it, none of this doesn't even matters becuase the only people whose opinion on Trek actually will even matter in to how its fictional governments doing anything and if its right or not have pretty much said it was wrong hell the books even put the Section 31 kiss of death on it so pretty much all we're ever doing in this thing is saying the same things over and over again.
Besides it doesn't matter who gets affects in this universe or even the federations' supposed wishes their all just window dressing for a movie about Picard and his crew so really his position in the damned film is the only one the matters really, so can we stop arguing about a crappy movie in a thread started by a banned troll that probably doesn't even believe anything he posted?
Oh and one more thing
Wow so the same federation that follows the strictest version of the Prime Directive that mean they won't even save billions of people from death because their pre-warp will kick a pre-warp culture off their planet to exploit it. Weird I would have expected Dougherty to get a 3 hour lecture on the prime directive from Picard before he was torched to death to appease the mighty cosmic force's whose sacred plan for the universe he violated that Riker came up with to justify letting another pre-warp culture die. Yes he actually used that argument.
The 'Homeward' interpretation of the prime directive you describe here is also morally falimentary.
Separate names with a comma.